|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 7, 2023 16:48:26 GMT -5
BTW, I should just say that I preferred that the PAC12 should stay together. I prefer regional leagues for a number of reasons, and I'm not sure college sports is better off being driven by economics of entities outside the mission of the institutions. But some of these unis have prominent business schools and you'd think they could have chimed in with good advice if they were worth their salt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Riviera Minestrone on Oct 7, 2023 16:49:17 GMT -5
Hey. I was born in Abilene. This seems like some random shade. (Although I have to admit I haven't been back since I was 1 yo). Y'all haven't missed much  |
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Oct 7, 2023 17:22:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Oct 7, 2023 20:37:23 GMT -5
BTW, I should just say that I preferred that the PAC12 should stay together. I prefer regional leagues for a number of reasons, and I'm not sure college sports is better off being driven by economics of entities outside the mission of the institutions. But some of these unis have prominent business schools and you'd think they could have chimed in with good advice if they were worth their salt. I disagree that the B schools should have chimed in. College media valuations seems like a very specialized area to me. I doubt many of the B schools have profs with expertise in that area. Unless they did, they were better off using a consultant, which several of them used.
" A] member of Kliavkoff’s executive team told me that at one point Randall inquired if he could participate in the actual media-rights negotiations. He wanted to be an observer. It wasn’t a terrible idea. The presidents would have had a set of eyes and ears in the negotiating room. But the request was shot down by Kliavkoff and the consulting firm. Randall did not comment.
What the president and chancellors did do, however, was attempt to double check the work that Kliavkoff and his consulting firm were doing. It’s why a number of them hired their own consultants, Utah included. And almost everyone, at least initially, was operating from the Big Ten’s inflated valuations [of ~$70M-100M/school/year].
Bob Thompson, the retired Fox Sports Networks president, told me in the summer of 2022 that he believed the 10 remaining Pac-12 schools were worth $300 million total per year. That matches the $30 million per school that ESPN offered. But the valuations that the Pac-12 members came up with and talked about in their board meetings consistently came in between $40 million and $45 million per school annually. . . . Records show that Utah hired three consultants. Other schools weren’t far behind. " |
|
|
|
Post by Riviera Minestrone on Oct 7, 2023 21:06:01 GMT -5
I was reading a headline from The Register-Guard (Eugene paper), within an aggregated news source, that the hierarchies from both UO and OSU were summoned to testify to the Oregon Legislature about their move...and non-move. The politicos seemed none too pleased about the PAC since both are state universities. Excoriated and eviscerated UO!
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 7, 2023 21:27:47 GMT -5
BTW, I should just say that I preferred that the PAC12 should stay together. I prefer regional leagues for a number of reasons, and I'm not sure college sports is better off being driven by economics of entities outside the mission of the institutions. But some of these unis have prominent business schools and you'd think they could have chimed in with good advice if they were worth their salt. I disagree that the B schools should have chimed in. College media valuations seems like a very specialized area to me. I doubt many of the B schools have profs with expertise in that area. Unless they did, they were better off using a consultant, which several of them used.
" A] member of Kliavkoff’s executive team told me that at one point Randall inquired if he could participate in the actual media-rights negotiations. He wanted to be an observer. It wasn’t a terrible idea. The presidents would have had a set of eyes and ears in the negotiating room. But the request was shot down by Kliavkoff and the consulting firm. Randall did not comment.
What the president and chancellors did do, however, was attempt to double check the work that Kliavkoff and his consulting firm were doing. It’s why a number of them hired their own consultants, Utah included. And almost everyone, at least initially, was operating from the Big Ten’s inflated valuations [of ~$70M-100M/school/year].
Bob Thompson, the retired Fox Sports Networks president, told me in the summer of 2022 that he believed the 10 remaining Pac-12 schools were worth $300 million total per year. That matches the $30 million per school that ESPN offered. But the valuations that the Pac-12 members came up with and talked about in their board meetings consistently came in between $40 million and $45 million per school annually. . . . Records show that Utah hired three consultants. Other schools weren’t far behind. " The bolded part is one of the key problems that the Pac-12 had. They were objectively a lot less valuable than the Big Ten, so I'm not sure why they thought those numbers were especially relevant to their own valuation. Also, ESPN declined to sign a new deal with the Big Ten specifically because they thought the package was overpriced. And Fox already made it known that it wasn't interested. Even $40 million seems like it was too high of an asking price. |
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Oct 8, 2023 8:40:25 GMT -5
I disagree that the B schools should have chimed in. College media valuations seems like a very specialized area to me. I doubt many of the B schools have profs with expertise in that area. Unless they did, they were better off using a consultant, which several of them used.
" A] member of Kliavkoff’s executive team told me that at one point Randall inquired if he could participate in the actual media-rights negotiations. He wanted to be an observer. It wasn’t a terrible idea. The presidents would have had a set of eyes and ears in the negotiating room. But the request was shot down by Kliavkoff and the consulting firm. Randall did not comment.
What the president and chancellors did do, however, was attempt to double check the work that Kliavkoff and his consulting firm were doing. It’s why a number of them hired their own consultants, Utah included. And almost everyone, at least initially, was operating from the Big Ten’s inflated valuations [of ~$70M-100M/school/year].
Bob Thompson, the retired Fox Sports Networks president, told me in the summer of 2022 that he believed the 10 remaining Pac-12 schools were worth $300 million total per year. That matches the $30 million per school that ESPN offered. But the valuations that the Pac-12 members came up with and talked about in their board meetings consistently came in between $40 million and $45 million per school annually. . . . Records show that Utah hired three consultants. Other schools weren’t far behind. " The bolded part is one of the key problems that the Pac-12 had. They were objectively a lot less valuable than the Big Ten, so I'm not sure why they thought those numbers were especially relevant to their own valuation. Also, ESPN declined to sign a new deal with the Big Ten specifically because they thought the package was overpriced. And Fox already made it known that it wasn't interested. Even $40 million seems like it was too high of an asking price. I think bc there were so few valuations for college football media and it was the most recent. They were pricing the PAC schools at about half of what they thought the B1G schools got so the consultants they hired understood that the PAC wasn't worth nearly as much.
What other valuations were they supposed to use? That's a good point about ESPN. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 8, 2023 10:19:34 GMT -5
The bolded part is one of the key problems that the Pac-12 had. They were objectively a lot less valuable than the Big Ten, so I'm not sure why they thought those numbers were especially relevant to their own valuation. Also, ESPN declined to sign a new deal with the Big Ten specifically because they thought the package was overpriced. And Fox already made it known that it wasn't interested. Even $40 million seems like it was too high of an asking price. I think bc there were so few valuations for college football media and it was the most recent. They were pricing the PAC schools at about half of what they thought the B1G schools got so the consultants they hired understood that the PAC wasn't worth nearly as much.
What other valuations were they supposed to use? That's a good point about ESPN. Well, they could have consulted Bob Thompson, as his estimate seemed to be pretty accurate, and he had a ton of experience in this area. |
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Oct 8, 2023 10:42:46 GMT -5
I think bc there were so few valuations for college football media and it was the most recent. They were pricing the PAC schools at about half of what they thought the B1G schools got so the consultants they hired understood that the PAC wasn't worth nearly as much.
What other valuations were they supposed to use? That's a good point about ESPN. Well, they could have consulted Bob Thompson, as his estimate seemed to be pretty accurate, and he had a ton of experience in this area. Yes they could have. But I still don't see why it was inappropriate to use the B1G valuation since it was so recent. And half of the amount each B1G school got seems pretty accurate.
I wonder which consultants they used.
ETA: I thought it was curious that they all came in at $40-45M/school. Given how thin the market (comparables) is, I would have guessed more variation.
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 8, 2023 11:10:16 GMT -5
Well, they could have consulted Bob Thompson, as his estimate seemed to be pretty accurate, and he had a ton of experience in this area. Yes they could have. But I still don't see why it was inappropriate to use the B1G valuation since it was so recent. And half of the amount each B1G school got seems pretty accurate.
I wonder which consultants they used.
ETA: I thought it was curious that they all came in at $40-45M/school. Given how thin the market (comparables) is, I would have guessed more variation.
I mean, ESPN offered ~$30 million. The former Fox president and Oregon alum estimated the same. Given that, even $40 million seems quite ambitious. And they started by asking for $50 million, lol. They were so high that they caused ESPN to walk away from negotiations and go to the Big 12. Huge mistake. If the Big 12 didn't exist as a viable option for ESPN, maybe the Pac-12 could have forced a higher number. But the Big 12 does exist, and they got the deal. The Pac-12's mistake was that they seemed to think that ESPN or someone else needed their content enough to pay their asking price. But ESPN and Fox and the other networks didn't actually need Pac-12 content that much, so that's why they were never able to get a higher offer than ESPN's initial one as far as I know. Even the Apple deal, which would have been very heavy on streaming, was reported to be $23 million per school per year. |
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Oct 8, 2023 12:03:26 GMT -5
Yes they could have. But I still don't see why it was inappropriate to use the B1G valuation since it was so recent. And half of the amount each B1G school got seems pretty accurate.
I wonder which consultants they used.
ETA: I thought it was curious that they all came in at $40-45M/school. Given how thin the market (comparables) is, I would have guessed more variation.
I mean, ESPN offered ~$30 million. The former Fox president and Oregon alum estimated the same. Given that, even $40 million seems quite ambitious. And they started by asking for $50 million, lol. They were so high that they caused ESPN to walk away from negotiations and go to the Big 12. Huge mistake. If the Big 12 didn't exist as a viable option for ESPN, maybe the Pac-12 could have forced a higher number. But the Big 12 does exist, and they got the deal. The Pac-12's mistake was that they seemed to think that ESPN or someone else needed their content enough to pay their asking price. But ESPN and Fox and the other networks didn't actually need Pac-12 content that much, so that's why they were never able to get a higher offer than ESPN's initial one as far as I know. Even the Apple deal, which would have been very heavy on streaming, was reported to be $23 million per school per year. Right but that's bc they thought the B1G contract was for ~$85M. If they'd used $65M instead, they would have been very close. That's why about half seems like a good guess to me. |
|
|
|
Post by coachdavid on Oct 13, 2023 1:39:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 5, 2023 19:18:28 GMT -5
We are well into the college football season and USC has been exposed for the frauds they are. I'm certainly not surprised that they were overrated to start the season and relish them losing as their selfishness and greed kickstarted the demise of the Pac-12 conference. But I still can't for the life of me understand why the men in suits that poached the LA schools think there is so much $$$ to be gained by adding those programs to the conference at equal share from the jump. This has been one of the most hyped college football years for the LA schools in YEARS. USC started out the year ranked in the top 10 and both LA schools have been ranked this year for many weeks. If anything, THIS is the year people should be excited to actually watch and support the LA schools, yet, despite the massive amounts of people in the LA basin and alumni, NEITHER program has sold out for ANY games (UCLA is lucky to get half of the capacity to the games), and among the top 25 most viewed games so far this season, UCLA is nowhere on the list, and USC appears only twice - playing Notre Dame (which is driven by Notre Dame Fans), and Colorado (which has nothing to do with USC, as Colorado has 4 other matches in the top 10). Where is all of this elite $$$ coming from the LA schools, because all I see are overrated programs that still don't drive eyes. TV Viewership: footballscoop.com/news/the-25-most-watched-games-of-the-first-half-of-the-2023-college-football-season-deion-sanders-colorado-ohio-state-notre-dame-alabama-college-football-playoff-race |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Nov 14, 2023 20:43:45 GMT -5
Don't know what this means exactly . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 14, 2023 21:00:21 GMT -5
Don't know what this means exactly . . . I think it means that only Washington State and Oregon State can vote on Pac-12 matters and now have control of its assets. Pending appeal, of course. |
|
